Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Technically Hillary Clinton could still be elected President.

1…457910…14

Comments

  • #182
    ligerdub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,585 ✭✭✭ligerdub


    purpleisafruit wrote: »
    Is there any merit in assigning electoral college votes for a state proportional to the overall vote for the candidate in that state? Hilary currently gets 55 electoral college votes from California.
    Under this system, with 62% of the votes, she gets 34 electoral college votes and Trump gets the remaining 21.
    I'm sure this system has flaws too but it gives a much fairer reflection of the votes of the population of California. I haven't checked but I'm fairly confident that proportional electoral college votes would give a more accurate reflection of voter sentiment in a given state

    It would also effectively convert it to a popular vote. Classic bargaining stage suggestion.


  • #183
    purpleisafruit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 501 ✭✭✭purpleisafruit


    ligerdub wrote: »
    It would also effectively convert it to a popular vote. Classic bargaining stage suggestion.
    Believe me, I have no preference in who runs a country 3000 miles away. It's the classic 'Douche vs Turd' from South Park.
    I do have an interest in equitable voting systems. Electoral college is FPTP and something I intensely disagree with. In the UK, you have a similar issue where a large percentage of voters in a constituency are effectively not having their views represented.


  • #184
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    purpleisafruit wrote: »
    Is there any merit in assigning electoral college votes for a state proportional to the overall vote for the candidate in that state? Hilary currently gets 55 electoral college votes from California.
    Under this system, with 62% of the votes, she gets 34 electoral college votes and Trump gets the remaining 21.
    I'm sure this system has flaws too but it gives a much fairer reflection of the votes of the population of California. I haven't checked but I'm fairly confident that proportional electoral college votes would give a more accurate reflection of voter sentiment in a given state

    I believe states can assign their electoral votes as they wish, as long as it is approved by the voters of the state. But it is a state by state basis.

    Maine and Nebraska have a different method of assigning electoral votes than the other states. These states allocate two Electoral Votes to the popular vote winner, and then one each to the popular vote winner in each Congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska) in their state. This creates multiple popular vote contests in these states, which could lead to a split Electoral Vote.


  • #185
    ligerdub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,585 ✭✭✭ligerdub


    purpleisafruit wrote: »
    Believe me, I have no preference in who runs a country 3000 miles away. It's the classic 'Douche vs Turd' from South Park.
    I do have an interest in equitable voting systems. Electoral college is FPTP and something I intensely disagree with. In the UK, you have a similar issue where a large percentage of voters in a constituency are effectively not having their views represented.

    Fair enough. I can see the point, in the UK for example, 4.5 million votes for UKIP = 1 seat in parliament. Having said that, in what amounts to a 2 party system I think they have it spot on in the states in terms of how they arrive at their totals.

    This is a very unusual circumstance where there is a clear winner in both the popular and electoral vote, except for the fact that they are both different. It is an exception but in my opinion they still have the best candidate in terms of the national representation of the US.


  • #186
    BorneTobyWilde
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,715 ✭✭✭✭BorneTobyWilde


    https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/802269834146762752


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    Rainman16
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 566 ✭✭✭Rainman16


    BorneTobyWilde wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/802269834146762752

    Stein has raised 5 million dollars and forced a Wisconsin recount in time,
    She is getting the vote in Michigan and Pennsylvania recounted too.

    If all 3 states were turned over for Clinton. She would have enough Electoral College votes to become President elect.


  • #188
    osmiumartist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 916 ✭✭✭osmiumartist


    Rainman16 wrote: »
    If all 3 states were turned over for Clinton. She would have enough Electoral College votes to become President elect.
    Which hasn't a hope in hell and isn't even why the recount has been applied for.
    Not to mention Stein could have given the election to Hillary in the first place quite easily by not running.


  • #189
    ligerdub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,585 ✭✭✭ligerdub


    Rainman16 wrote: »
    Stein has raised 5 million dollars and forced a Wisconsin recount in time,
    She is getting the vote in Michigan and Pennsylvania recounted too.

    If all 3 states were turned over for Clinton. She would have enough Electoral College votes to become President elect.

    InZtJkB.jpg


  • #190
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    Rainman16 wrote: »
    Stein has raised 5 million dollars and forced a Wisconsin recount in time,
    She is getting the vote in Michigan and Pennsylvania recounted too.

    If all 3 states were turned over for Clinton. She would have enough Electoral College votes to become President elect.

    5 million plus dollars wasted, IMO. No chance. Is it to enhance her own profile or her party? Try Facebook, it's cheaper.


  • #191
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,319 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    ligerdub wrote: »
    purpleisafruit wrote: »
    Is there any merit in assigning electoral college votes for a state proportional to the overall vote for the candidate in that state? Hilary currently gets 55 electoral college votes from California.
    Under this system, with 62% of the votes, she gets 34 electoral college votes and Trump gets the remaining 21.
    I'm sure this system has flaws too but it gives a much fairer reflection of the votes of the population of California. I haven't checked but I'm fairly confident that proportional electoral college votes would give a more accurate reflection of voter sentiment in a given state

    It would also effectively convert it to a popular vote. Classic bargaining stage suggestion.
    Not quite. The smaller States would still have slightly more proportional weight. Which is fine with me.
    In any case, it's a non-starter. I can't see any circumstances where the Democrats of California will voluntarily give up a third of their EC votes to the opposition.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Not quite. The smaller States would still have slightly more proportional weight. Which is fine with me.
    In any case, it's a non-starter. I can't see any circumstances where the Democrats of California will voluntarily give up a third of their EC votes to the opposition.
    This.

    There has to be some sort of weighing, but IMHO the current system is not working and even Trump has said it!


  • #193
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,863 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    ...even Trump has said it!

    You do realise that "things that are true" and "things Trump says" are completely orthogonal concepts?


  • #194
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Oh the irony!

    Hillary Clinton’s lawyer, Marc Elias, who is joining and charging ahead on Clinton's behalf in the three-state recount, if fighting to have Republican Governor Pat McCrory drop his calls for a North Carolina recount. Democrat Roy Cooper won by a mere 9,133 votes. The recount measure is happening in NC because of widespread concerns of foul play in Durham County, where 90,000 early votes suddenly appeared late on Election Night to give Cooper the victory.

    Just like our lovely Democrats... Do as I say, not as I do. But ignore all this... and instead continue the only noble battle, which is to delegitimize the win of Donald Trump over her highness Hillary Clinton who currently resides in exile.


  • #195
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You do realise that "things that are true" and "things Trump says" are completely orthogonal concepts?
    I believe my tongue was firmly in the cheek for that one ;)


  • #196
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,863 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Amerika wrote: »
    ...to delegitimize the win of Donald Trump...

    I'll agree with you on this much: it's futile to attempt to de-legitimise his win. He won the election, albeit with a pretty significant deficit in the popular vote.

    I think the best strategy now for the Democrats is to let him continue to de-legitimise his own presidency, which he has been doing at a pretty astonishing pace long before he's even inaugurated.


  • #197
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    If his election results in a logical change to the electoral college, it'll be at least one good thing to come out of his Presidency! IMO - the only thing being "delegitimized" in this situation is the current electoral college.


  • #198
    Amerika
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭Amerika


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I think the best strategy now for the Democrats is to let him continue to de-legitimise his own presidency, which he has been doing at a pretty astonishing pace long before he's even inaugurated.
    Ah, but they won’t. Take a look at Elizabeth Warren's recent speech. She is the current front runner for the 2020 presidential election and has already started campaigning. She has pretty much vowed not to work with Trump and the Republicans, even before he even takes office. But she still fails to realize that Trump is not your average Republican. Trump will take his case, ad nauseum, to the people and make Democrats look bad in the eyes of the voters.



  • #199
    ligerdub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,585 ✭✭✭ligerdub


    Christ what a dope! Helen Lovejoy in human form.

    "On womens".......womens haha! I love the way she threw black people and gay people into the mix of bigotry, neither of which were targets of Donald.

    Forget about her, she has no chance.

    Edit: To her credit, she at least seems to offer a reach out message to voters rather than Hillary's "do it for me" style.


  • #200
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,863 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    ligerdub wrote: »
    I love the way she threw black people and gay people into the mix of bigotry, neither of which were targets of Donald.

    Given how he was still loudly proclaiming the guilt of five young black men years after they had been unequivocally cleared, and given also his VP pick, I don't think too many black people and gays consider the Donald a champion of their rights.


  • #201
    ligerdub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,585 ✭✭✭ligerdub


    Quite a reach.

    Also a very convenient ignorance of the counter argument.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,863 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    ligerdub wrote: »
    Also a very convenient ignorance of the counter argument.

    I await with bated breath the argument that Donald "stop and frisk" Trump and Mike "electrocute the gays" Pence are champions of those minorities.


  • #203
    ligerdub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,585 ✭✭✭ligerdub


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I await with bated breath the argument that Donald "stop and frisk" Trump and Mike "electrocute the gays" Pence are champions of those minorities.

    Whereas Saint Hillary has never made any off colour comments about black people or homosexuals. Her attitude towards them was pathetic and insulting, pandering to them for votes.

    You're wasting your time with that angle anyway, Donald was vocal in his views. The idea that he is anti-black or anti-gay is just stupid.


  • #204
    osmiumartist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 916 ✭✭✭osmiumartist


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Given how he was still loudly proclaiming the guilt of five young black men years after they had been unequivocally cleared, and given also his VP pick, I don't think too many black people and gays consider the Donald a champion of their rights.
    What a pity for your "theory" that plenty of ethnic minority members and women voted for Trump isn't it? But hey, you know better than those coloureds and wimminfolk what's good for them I guess.
    Clinton's a big fan of Wahhabism, right? What's their record on this sort of stuff anyway?


  • #205
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,863 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    osmiumartist wrote: »
    What a pity for your "theory"...
    What part of Trump supporting stop and frisk is a theory? What part of him insisting that the Central Park Five were guilty is a theory? What part of him selecting a blatantly homophobic VP is a theory?


  • #206
    osmiumartist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 916 ✭✭✭osmiumartist


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    What part of Trump supporting stop and frisk is a theory? What part of him insisting that the Central Park Five were guilty is a theory? What part of him selecting a blatantly homophobic VP is a theory?
    Your theory about why gays and minorities and women should hate Trump pretty much because you said so when plenty of them voted for him?
    If only the world would listen eh?


  • #207
    ligerdub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,585 ✭✭✭ligerdub


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    What part of Trump supporting stop and frisk is a theory? What part of him insisting that the Central Park Five were guilty is a theory? What part of him selecting a blatantly homophobic VP is a theory?

    None of that proves anything.


  • #208
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,863 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    osmiumartist wrote: »
    Your theory about why gays and minorities and women should hate Trump...
    There's really nothing as futile as arguing with someone who just makes stuff up as they go along.


  • #209
    osmiumartist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 916 ✭✭✭osmiumartist


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    There's really nothing as futile as arguing with someone who just makes stuff up as they go along.
    Oh really?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I don't think too many black people and gays consider the Donald a champion of their rights.
    You're denying you said that? We can all just scroll up and see it! You had noticed people can read your posts and see you for an obvious liar?
    No point in arguing with people who think they are clever enough to get away with that garbage.


  • #210
    ebbsy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭ebbsy


    I thought Jill Stein got millions of dollars yet she cant afford a bond for a recount...where has all the cash gone Jill ???

    Meanwhile in Wisconsin Trump gains by 39 votes on day 5. Well done Jill.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    FatherTed
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,684 ✭✭✭FatherTed


    ebbsy wrote: »
    I thought Jill Stein got millions of dollars yet she cant afford a bond for a recount...where has all the cash gone Jill ???

    Meanwhile in Wisconsin Trump gains by 39 votes on day 5. Well done Jill.

    Have you tried.... looking at her website?
    https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount
    Friends, I have an important message for you. We need your help to stand up to the powerful forces trying to block our recount campaign for citizen democracy. We received word yesterday that the final estimate for the filing fee for the recount in Wisconsin is $3.5 million – an outrageous cost increase from the initial estimate of $1.1 million that was given to us by WI state elections officials based on the last statewide recount. But thanks to over 130,000 small donors like you, we have enough money in hand to pay this fee and move forward with the recount!

    But because of this exorbitant fee increase – bringing the total money required for recounts in all three states to $9.5 million – we need your help. We’re not there yet, and we need every last penny to reach the $9.5 million benchmark. ....
    Here are the estimated filing fees and deadlines for each state:

    Wisconsin: $3.5 million by Nov 25 (ADJUSTED Nov 28 to $3.5 million)
    Pennsylvania: $500,000 by Nov 28
    Michigan: $975,000 by Nov 30
    Those are estimated filing fees alone. The costs associated with recounts are a function of state law, which can often be difficult to untangle. Attorney's fees are likely to be another $2-3 million, then there are the costs of the statewide recount observers in all three states. The total cost is likely to be $9-10 million.


Advertisement